Clearance, licences and open-source exposure, with the clause quoted and the authority checked.

Attach the vendor's terms to the matter, run the IP & Technology Agent, and get the clause quoted and the authority checked before you send the redline.

IP and technology

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough

No credit card required

Document Review · Hartwell matter · contract screen0/12 filled

Document	Parties and effective dateTEXT	Term and renewalTEXT	Limitation of liabilityTEXT	Governing lawTEXT
nda-hartwell-meridian.txt
saas-agreement-northgate.txt
board-minutes-hartwell.txt

A licence stack against an IP-ownership column, four agreements flagged with an assignment gap.

Before

A brand launch like Northwood Brands' needs a first-pass clearance across three markets by Friday, and the honest answer takes a lawyer's hour that is too expensive to spend on instinct.

A vendor's AI terms land buried in an acceptable-use annex, granting training rights over customer data that nobody in procurement noticed.

A general assistant will describe a licence obligation it has not actually read, or attach a case to a trademark-opposition argument that resolves to nothing.

After

The IP & Technology Agent runs the first-pass clearance against UKIPO and EUIPO material and states plainly what it could not check, so a search agency gets a scoped brief instead of a blank one.

The Contract Agent quotes the training-rights clause in the acceptable-use annex, rates it High, and proposes fallback wording before the vendor's deadline.

The Vendor AI Terms Review skill and the Commercial Contract / MSA Review playbook turn a stack of forty agreements into a grid, the IP-ownership column showing in one pass which four have an assignment gap.

A patent attorney touring a robotics lab with two engineers.

Grounded on the matter

The vendor's terms, the licence stack or the opposition papers go into the matter, and the IP & Technology Agent reads what is actually there. On a Northwood Brands-shaped opposition, the cited registration and the actual mark are read against each other, not against a general description of trademark law.

See how matters work

Matters · Project Halcyon · SPA warranties and disclosureOpen

Project Halcyon: SPA warranties and disclosure

Buy-side warranty review, disclosure analysis and cited due-diligence grid.

Client: Halcyon Bidco Ltd
Reference: WC-2026-0412
Practice area: Corporate / M&A
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Responsible partner: E. Vance

No conflict check on file.

Chat, on this matter

Compare warranties with the disclosure letter.

Three high-priority exceptions require action: the unregistered charge, the change-of-control right and the tribunal claim.

Send a message… (@ to mention tools)BalancedPrepare for

25 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Chat
21 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Run · completed · 560 credits
18 Aug
Project Halcyon: Disclosure Letter
Document · indexed
16 Aug
Project Halcyon: Share Purchase Agreement
Document · indexed
4 Aug
Matter opened
Opened

The matter for a brand clearance, with the licence stack loaded and read.

A memo, not a chat

The Commercial Contract / MSA Review playbook grids forty inbound and outbound agreements with columns for IP ownership, indemnification and change of control, plus whatever the deal turns on this time: model-training rights, output ownership, source escrow.

See the review grid

A review grid: documents down the side, questions across the top, and a cited answer in every cell. — Forty agreements against an IP-ownership column, four flagged with an assignment gap.

Verified, then shareable

Section 39 of the Patents Act 1977 and any case behind an infringement question are checked against the source before the memo relies on them. The Data & privacy and Telecoms & media Horizon watches file weekly, each development cited to the underlying instrument, shareable as a passcode link.

See how verification works

Authorities · 14 · Where we looked

#	Reference	Source	Verdict
1	Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32	—	not yet checked
2	Working Time Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1833, regs 4 to 5, 10 to 14	—	not yet checked
3	Coppage v Safety Net Security Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1176	—	not yet checked
4	UK GDPR, Articles 6 and 9 Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679	—	not yet checked
5	Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1 c 18	—	not yet checked
6	Harlow v Artemis International [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB)	—	not yet checked

The statute behind an employer-ownership question, checked before the memo relies on it.

Named, not generic.

Each agent is built for one kind of work, carries its own protocols and returns the same six-tab run. These are the ones this desk reaches for.

What a run costs.

Credits are metered per run and shown by matter, so a clearance question and a licence-stack review each carry their own visible cost.

See pricing

What you will say before you try it.

We are asked commercial questions with legal shapes, and a wrong answer ships in the next release.: The Contract Agent quotes the clause rather than describing it, so a training-rights or output-ownership question is answered against the actual wording in the agreement, not a summary of what SaaS agreements usually say.
A trademark clearance has to cite something real.: Every authority a run relies on, including a case behind an infringement question, is fetched from an approved list of public primary-law sources and marked verified, needs a check or not found before the memo is finished.
The client's code and model outputs are commercially sensitive.: Files and matter records sit in Microsoft Azure UK, encrypted in transit and at rest, and are never used to train or fine-tune any model. Pro, BYOK, runs the same feature set on the firm's own provider key.

Nearby desks.

Start free

Review one of your own technology agreements.

Ten minutes, no card. Put one vendor clause through the IP & Technology Agent.

Start free Book a 20-minute walkthrough